Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

All focused witchfires in the brb don't have an assault profile as you demand, they are an assault weapon.

If your stance is correct then no focused witchfire works.


You cannot answer the question "Why does the roll not count?" because there is no reason it doesn't. You keep throwing roadblocks up that have no bearing in the rules because it looks like you just want this to be your way. I have yet to see any rules provided by yourself to back this up.

You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?
Witchfires don't follow the witchfire rules for rolling to hit, why in every case other than the SW codex where there is explicit permission?

Also page 50 "number of shots" for the "how many dice question" if a weapon can be shot multiple times, it'll tell you. Since this doesn't it's 1.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?

Because the rules require it.

Also page 50 "number of shots" for the "how many dice question" if a weapon can be shot multiple times, it'll tell you. Since this doesn't it's 1.

Perhaps you'd like to reference the more specific Assault rules that require a profile to tell you how many shots.

Crimson -
The fact that "no one" has had a problem with it until now is irrelevant. "No one" had a problem with Force vs FNP all the time until it was brought up here.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?

Because the rules require it.

Citation please? I just don't see anywhere that says PSA require the standard profile or they don't work, because if this is true then no focused witchfire works.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You assert that a PSA must have a strict weapons profile, why?

Because the rules require it.

Citation please? I just don't see anywhere that says PSA require the standard profile or they don't work, because if this is true then no focused witchfire works.

Page 51 requires you to look at the profile to see how many shots to fire an Assault weapon.
To look at a profile one must exist.
Therefore the rules require PSAs (witchfires) to have a profile.

So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

Again with the hostility...

As long as people agree on that, we can move on to talking about intent. Did GW intend for witchfires/FW without a profile to roll to hit?
I don't think they did - there's tons of PSAs that don't need to roll to hit (have been FAQed that way). It also makes the power extremely sub-par.

The are a few PSAs but they're mostly SW and other mid 5th ed powers so it's not a fair statement to say that intent is that a nebulous number of powers don't need to roll to hit.

Now that we're on to intent we cannot have any real discussion if opinions differ as they are all just as valid. As none of us can know the intent and it falls down to ask your TO really.

For me saying a power has to roll to hit is enough of a guidance that it's just make a single roll to hit in this instance, in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Well they do say roll to hit, I have 1 PSA, it doesn't say it has multiple shots.... how many dice do I roll seems very straight forward to me. I also said just above that, that if we're accepting that you must have a profile that we were now talking RAI.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Yes, but still in reality everyone knows to roll one die if not told otherwise. So once we move beyond strict RAW, this is not an issue.

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Well they do say roll to hit, I have 1 PSA, it doesn't say it has multiple shots.... how many dice do I roll seems very straight forward to me. I also said just above that, that if we're accepting that you must have a profile that we were now talking RAI.

It doesn't say you have any shots, at all. A stormbolter is 1 shooting attack, but you roll two dice for it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

Again with the hostility...

As long as people agree on that, we can move on to talking about intent. Did GW intend for witchfires/FW without a profile to roll to hit?
I don't think they did - there's tons of PSAs that don't need to roll to hit (have been FAQed that way). It also makes the power extremely sub-par.

I would disagree on intent as RAW requires a roll to hit and PS doesn't provide an exemption. "Making the power sub par" probably comes from playing an army filled with bs3 psykers.

A witchfire power (singlular) requires a roll (singular) to hit. I would argue that intent is a single d6. Everyone I've played against with PS has rolled a single d6 to hit, and I roll a single d6 to hit when I use it.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Yes, but still in reality everyone knows to roll one die if not told otherwise. So once we move beyond strict RAW, this is not an issue.

Demonstrably false. I didn't roll to hit until someone pointed it out to me. Other people in this thread have said they don't. So how about you drop the hostility and have a polite discussion?

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

I would suggest you refrain from posting further, as you arent actually doing anything to further the useful debate over what the rules say, as opposed to what you assumed they said.

We have determined, usefully, that there is a gap in the rules that should be addressed.

You have, personally, zero evidence that GW intended them to hit or to not hit, so cannot make an intent argument

So you have..nothing left to argue about. Meanwhile those who want to determine what the rules actually say should be allowed to get on with it, without having to respond to hostility such as the above

Just as a reminder: this forum isnt a game of 40k. We arent currently, I suspect, in the middle of playing a game. This question is unlikely to be causing a win or lose moment in a game we are currently playing. As such why not allow others the luxury of debate, to come to a consensus, and then maybe let this thread die. Your hostility, insults and general tone all the way through this thread is not conducive to anything but causing others opinion of you to lower.

In short: nothing forces you to post here. If the debate offends you, somehow, then please leave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Yes, but still in reality everyone knows to roll one die if not told otherwise. So once we move beyond strict RAW, this is not an issue.

Not "everyone", either. T ehre you go with assumptions

I never made an opponent of mine roll to hit, as nothing about the power suggests the effect is tied to any such roll to hit

Oops, another failed assumption.

Banbaji wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.

Firstly this is a fallacy, just because some people play it this way doesn't make it the objective right answer.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
in the absence of any profile I look to the witchfire rules.

Which don't say anything about how many dice to roll. They literally give no guidance on how to handle powers without profiles.

Well they do say roll to hit, I have 1 PSA, it doesn't say it has multiple shots.... how many dice do I roll seems very straight forward to me. I also said just above that, that if we're accepting that you must have a profile that we were now talking RAI.

It doesn't say you have any shots, at all. A stormbolter is 1 shooting attack, but you roll two dice for it.

A storm bolter does make a shooting attack and because it's profile says you make multiple shots you roll multiple dice, that's perfectly fine and if you follow that hard line that any shooting attack that doesn't have a profile cannot fire you aslo don't get to resolve witchfires and use the 3d6 vs ld wounds as you're not following the rules and haven't resolved a witchfire.
And again... I was giving my opinion of RAI.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So you broke the game. Grats! Now what?

Again with the hostility...

As long as people agree on that, we can move on to talking about intent. Did GW intend for witchfires/FW without a profile to roll to hit?
I don't think they did - there's tons of PSAs that don't need to roll to hit (have been FAQed that way). It also makes the power extremely sub-par.

I would disagree on intent as RAW requires a roll to hit and PS doesn't provide an exemption. "Making the power sub par" probably comes from playing an army filled with bs3 psykers.

A witchfire power (singlular) requires a roll (singular) to hit. I would argue that intent is a single d6. Everyone I've played against with PS has rolled a single d6 to hit, and I roll a single d6 to hit when I use it.

The one that I use it on is BS4 (Doom) but still - 11/12 chance to pass the psychic test, 3/4 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to not get denied is about a 57% chance to do anything... and even then, on the majority of targets (LD9) you'll only do a single wound half the time... a 28.5% chance to have some effect is pretty bad. Removing the roll to hit makes it ~38% which is still not great, but with the possibility of an extreme roll I'm okay using the power.

I think it's unfair to say Crimson cannot make a RAI argument Nos. He is making one, you don't buy it but that's not the same thing.

I think your maths are a little off on the wounds inflicted rigeld, it's a 74% chance on 3d6 getting more than 9.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think it's unfair to say Crimson cannot make a RAI argument Nos. He is making one, you don't buy it but that's not the same thing.

No, actually Crimson is saying dont argue, as only their version of the rules should be considered. Or at least, that is the impression they have given in this thread - that the rules are silly, so yell "intent!" and get on with it.

Theyre also not making a particularly valid RAI argument, given a) the existence of the power itself, whcih does not follow any usual to-hit, to-wound mechanic as a normal assault weapon would, without a profile to state the difference, and b) there is precedence of other unusual PSAs / witchfires not requiring a roll to hit, or with a flip flop between needing it. "Intent" is incredibly, incredibly murky on this - as it quite often is, for those being honest about it - that falling back on the RAW makes sense.

And the RAW is that: roll to hit (somehow), but regardless of the result the 3D6 effect triggers. Because nothing in the 3D6 requires you to have actually hit - there is zero textual evidence to that fact - otherwise you would have proven it.

I just get irritated by those posters who feel that, just because they think arguing about a particular topic is silly, it is OK to be rude, hostile and incredibly disrespectful to those who are interested in finding out what, in a forum dedicated to answering ruels queries, the rules actually say. Especially when they say their piece, but if the discussion continues feel the need to interrupt to tell other people to not bother - as if somehow the debate is personally offensive to them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have, personally, zero evidence that GW intended them to hit or to not hit, so cannot make an intent argument

Except for the rule that all witchfires except for basts, templates, etc require a roll to hit.

Without an explicit exemption for PS, you're breaking a rule by not rolling to hit.

I do like a nice discussion and I agree that name calling isn't cool.

The RAW is not apply the 3d6 regardless, the best you've proven is that the RAW is the power doesn't work. The fact it's a witchfire requires you to hit and if you don't hit with a witchfire where is the RAW permission to finish applying the rest of the power.

You've shown that the assault weapons rules say look at the profile for how many dice to roll and it doesn't have one. That isn't the same as it doesn't need to roll or that the roll to hit on however many dice is ignored no matter the result.

Precedence of other witchfires that use different to hit mechanics and have a secondary effect that has no bearing on it's primary attack isn't the same and I don't see it as precedence in this. Especially as I've not seen any examples given of a witchfire power that was written after 2009.

So I ask, where is the permission to ignore the roll to hit in witchfire and focussed witchfire and still apply the entire ability of the power?

Your argument on the 3d6 sounds a little like it doesn't say I cannot. I have shown textual evidence, it's on page 69, unless you have a rule that shows this power hits automatically then you must roll to hit.

The RAW permission is in the power. as I have said - nothing about "roll to hit" says *anything whatsoever* about the effect "3D6...." being conditional upon a successful hit or not. It says simply "do ..." and never requires a roll to hit to succeed or not.

I also did not say you do not have to roll to-hit - I pointed out you cannto actually do so, as you have undefined number of dice - just that no matter the result the 3D6 will occur.

Again: look at the rules for rolling to-hit with an assault weapon. Find a requirement in there for a succesful roll to hit in order to trigger PS 3D6 effect. If you cannot find one then you cannot state - cannot, as in it would be impossible for you to state truthfully - that a succesful roll to hit is a requirement to trigger the 3D6

It isnt "it doesnt say I cant" - the power tells me I can, and nothing in the to-hit section says I am required to successfully hit before applying the powers effects. Absolutely nothing.

I repeat, as I have made this point a few times now: I am not ignoring the roll to-hit; it must still be made. The number of dice cannot be determined, so you cannot actually roll to-hit, but it must still occur. What I am saying is that the power does not place a requirement on a successful roll to-hit needing to take place before you roll the 3D6 effect. All the power tells you to do is to roll 3D6..., and gives no precondition whatsoever

Hopefully this is clear.

I'm sorry but you're saying because there is a gap in the rules that this power doesn't have a profile it must auto resolve.
A roll to hit must happen as you have said yourself, so if it cannot happen but must happen the rules require an FAQ otherwise it's an assertion to make any call. However a roll to hit is the common parlance in the books to roll a dice and look at the result. 1 dice.

That is a cop out, none of the focussed witchfire powers say they require a roll to hit in their wording but that doesn't overcome the fact they require it raw.

It's not clear as you haven't given RAW you have said that the value of x is missing so we skip x. Unfortunately this doesn't gel with the witchfire rules.
If you're missing a value in a power or weapon you don't skip that step without some permission.

Yes I cannot say that assault weapons don't say look at the profile, I'm saying that the rules on the previous page says what happens if you don't have a number greater than 1 on your profile.

After what has been discussed, I will ask my opponent about psychic shriek before every game, because it always gets used by my hq.

rigeld2 wrote:

Demonstrably false. I didn't roll to hit until someone pointed it out to me. Other people in this thread have said they don't. So how about you drop the hostility and have a polite discussion?

No, I meant that if you think that you need to roll to hit in the first place, then in reality you know how many dice to roll. If you have ever rolled to hit for this power because an opponent requested it, then you have determined the number of dice needed to be rolled. In practice that is a non-issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, actually Crimson is saying dont argue, as only their version of the rules should be considered.

Absolutely not.

Or at least, that is the impression they have given in this thread - that the rules are silly, so yell "intent!" and get on with it.

However, if a strict application of RAW leads to the game breaking (as at least by your interpretation it does here), then you absolutely have to consider intent.

Theyre also not making a particularly valid RAI argument, given a) the existence of the power itself, whcih does not follow any usual to-hit, to-wound mechanic as a normal assault weapon would, without a profile to state the difference, and b) there is precedence of other unusual PSAs / witchfires not requiring a roll to hit, or with a flip flop between needing it. "Intent" is incredibly, incredibly murky on this - as it quite often is, for those being honest about it - that falling back on the RAW makes sense.

Rules saying that you have to roll to hit is pretty compelling argument that they intended that you have to roll for hit. Granted, it is possible that they intended all non-weapon-profile witchfires to autohit, but that is quite a big assumption to make.

And the RAW is that: roll to hit (somehow), but regardless of the result the 3D6 effect triggers. Because nothing in the 3D6 requires you to have actually hit - there is zero textual evidence to that fact - otherwise you would have proven it.

But still you cannot skip the rolling for hit part. And if you cannot determine the number of dice to be rolled, you cannot proceed. The power cannot be resolved. The moment you suggest just skipping this part, you're arguing HYWPI without rules backing, exactly the thing you accused me of doing.

I just get irritated by those posters who feel that, just because they think arguing about a particular topic is silly, it is OK to be rude, hostile and incredibly disrespectful to those who are interested in finding out what, in a forum dedicated to answering ruels queries, the rules actually say. Especially when they say their piece, but if the discussion continues feel the need to interrupt to tell other people to not bother - as if somehow the debate is personally offensive to them.

You are one who is constantly reading hostility in simple disagreement.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Banbaji wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.

Firstly this is a fallacy, just because some people play it this way doesn't make it the objective right answer.

It is the same fallacy you used when saying the "vast majority" play it that way. I simply request that you change your claim to the vast majority of people you play with.

Banbaji wrote:

It is the same fallacy you used when saying the "vast majority" play it that way. I simply request that you change your claim to the vast majority of people you play with.

I said that, not Liturgies. But yes, it is of course anecdotal. My search of Dakka threads and internet in general seems to support rolling being the prevailing position though. That of course isn't in itself a proof that it's the correct interpretation.

Banbaji wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:

Banbaji wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Considering that vast majority of people are actually rolling to hit for Psychic Shriek, they somehow manage to figure out how many dice to roll.

Speak for yourself. Not a single person I have ever played has rolled to hit for psychic shriek because the power doesn't require the hit to be successful to work. The rules for assault weapons specifically say to roll the number of dice indicated in the profile. No profile, no dice. This power has no resolution RAW; however, the effect goes off by simply targeting a unit, as stated in the power itself.

Firstly this is a fallacy, just because some people play it this way doesn't make it the objective right answer.

It is the same fallacy you used when saying the "vast majority" play it that way. I simply request that you change your claim to the vast majority of people you play with.

I simply request that you read what I say and not what someone else says and say it was me. I never claimed anyone did or didn't roll for it. That's not the debate, I don't discuss the rules using logical fallacies because they detract from the arguments.

Never really looked into it that much, always have rolled 1D6.

The effect being contingent on the To Hit roll is assumptive. Since Witchfire powers require To Hit rolls (as per the BRB), there is an assumption that the power has to hit to have an effect. We all know that GW does not write the clearest most concise rules, and you do have to make some assumptions when playing this game. So, it seems to go like this:

1. Determine you want to use Psychic Shriek - if you meet all of the requirements for making a shooting attack, proceed
2. Make your Psychic Test - If you make the test, proceed
3. Opponent attempts to Deny the Witch - If opponent fails, proceed
4. Roll To Hit - If you hit, proceed
5. Resolve the attack by rolling the 3d6

We are always beat over the head with the fact that 40k is a permissive ruleset, therefore we have to ask: has Psychic Shriek been given permission to not follow the rules? The answer is no. There is no caveat or exception in the description for Psychic Shriek that states that it does not require the roll to hit, or to allow it to affect its target if it misses. I have not played anybody that has tried to use this power without shooting, or tried to affect me after missing....

Edited for clarity.

 Battlesong wrote:
The effect being contingent on the To Hit roll is assumptive. Since Witchfire powers require To Hit rolls (as per the BRB), there is an assumption that the power has to hit to have an effect. If this weren't the case then this would not be a witchfire power, this would be a malediction. We all know that GW does not write the clearest most concise rules, and you do have to make some assumptions when playing this game. So, it seems to go like this:

1. Determine you want to use Psychic Shriek - if you meet all of the requirements for making a shooting attack, proceed
2. Make your Psychic Test - If you make the test, proceed
3. Opponent attempts to Deny the Witch - If opponent fails, proceed
4. Roll To Hit - If you hit, proceed
5. Resolve the attack by rolling the 3d6

We are always beat over the head with the fact that 40k is a permissive ruleset, therefore we have to ask: has Psychic Shriek been given permission to not follow the rules? The answer is no. There is no caveat or exception in the description for Psychic Shriek that states that it does not require the roll to hit, or to allow it to affect its target if it misses. I have not played anybody that has tried to use this power without shooting, or tried to affect me after missing....

The bolded is an assumption with no support.
If they wanted it to be used during the shooting phase they could make it a witchfire and simply forgot that witchfires must roll to hit.